Emissions target inadequate, says Climate Change Authority

By
Peter Hannam

Oct. 30, 2013, 11:47 a.m.

Australia's greenhouse gas reduction target of 5 per cent this decade is inadequate and should be increased to at least 15 per cent, according to the agency set up to advise the government on climate change policy.

Australia's greenhouse gas reduction target of 5 per cent this decade is inadequate and should be increased to at least 15 per cent, according to the agency set up to advise the government on climate change policy.

In a draft report that is likely to ignite further debate about the Abbott government's policies, the Climate Change Authority said Australia should aim for a 15 per cent cut in emissions by 2020 compared with 2000 levels as a ''minimum option''.

The authority, which the Coalition has vowed to scrap, said it would represent ''an equitable share'' of the estimated global emissions budget that could limit global warming to 2 degrees by mid-century.

The draft report, which is due to be finalised by the end of February if the authority survives until then, also recommends considering an even deeper cut of 25 per cent by 2020 to allow ''a more consistent pace of emissions reductions'' needed out to 2050.

Authority chairman and former Reserve Bank governor Bernie Fraser said: ''If Australia is to take this science – and the below 2 degrees goal – seriously, it needs to act now and continue this effort over the long term.''

Based on growth projections, the cost per person of a 15 per cent target rather than 5 per cent would be just $100 by 2020, with annual gross national income still rising to $66,350 instead of $66,450, compared with $62,350 now. A 25 per cent cut would shave another $100 off, to $66,250 by then, the authority said.

The report said Australia should aim for a cut of 35 to 50 per cent by 2030 as the country's contribution to give the world a two-in-three chance of avoiding 2 degrees of global warming.

The Coalition and Labor had both pledged a 5-25 per cent reduction in emissions by 2020, with an increase over the 5 per cent mark dependent on more ambitious reductions internationally.

It comes as the Abbott government prepares to introduce legislation to scrap the carbon price and replacing it with its direct action policy of paying polluters to reduce emissions to meet the reduction target.

Several analyses have challenged whether direct action could achieve even a 5 per cent cut under its current $2.88 billion budget. The authority, though, makes no assessment of the direct action's viability, noting the government's call for submissions to help fine-tune the policy's design.

A spokesman for Environment Minister Greg Hunt confirmed on Monday that the Abbott government has no plans to review its targets – including setting ones for beyond 2020 – until 2015.

Labor policy, post election defeat, remains torn over carbon pricing with calls to ditch the policy and pursue the Abbott government over potential weaknesses in the Direct Action policy such as its reliance on carbon farming to supply much of the planned abatement.

The authority was established in 2011 by the Gillard Labor government and began operations the following year.

Analysts contacted by Fairfax Media before the release of the authority’s draft report said Australia's existing 5 per cent goal was meagre by international standards, particularly from a rich country with the most annual emissions per person among developed nations at about 25 tonnes.

They also said the Abbott government was at risk of falling out of sync with international efforts by planning to ditch a carbon market and holding off reviewing Australia's targets while many countries are already preparing to raise their ambitions for emissions cuts by 2020.

The authority's draft report said Australia's current target of a 5 per cent cut was ''inadequate'' not least because it had largely been achieved at little cost to the economy, and a 15 per cent target would require little more than current efforts.

It noted that the economy had doubled since 1990 and yet managed to keep current emissions at roughly 1990 levels as services increased their share of activity and land-clearing had slowed.

Tumbling prices for renewable energy and weak demand for coal-fired power meant that emissions were growing less quickly than predicted. As a result, the official projection made in 2012 that Australia would need to cut carbon emissions by 754 million tonnes in the period to 2020 would actually deliver an 11 per cent reduction on 2000 levels by then.

Australia also has so-called ''carry over'' credits of 91 million tonnes of carbon emissions since pollution during 2008-2012 was less than Australia had committed to under the Kyoto Protocol, a global climate treaty involving 192 nations.

Those credits were worth about 3 per cent, implying a 14 per cent reduction on 2000 levels, the authority said.

WWF-Australia, meanwhile, today released an AMR poll that found most Australians would support a more ambitious goal than 5 per cent.

The poll found two-thirds of those surveyed had a view on targets, and almost 80 per cent of those believe 5 per cent is too low. Some 52 per cent of those with an opinion on targets believe the minimum target should be 25 per cent or more.

“This independent advice adds to the weight of evidence showing that Australia’s minimum 5 per cent target is no longer credible and is out of sync with other countries,” WWF-Australia National Manager Climate Change, Kellie Caught said.

'Lower end'

The authority also noted that some 99 nations, including Australia's major trading partners, and accounting for more than 80 per cent of global emissions, have pledges to cut emissions by 2020.

''Despite these efforts, the cumulative effect of current 2020 emissions reduction pledges falls short of what is required to hold temperature increases below 2 degrees,'' the authority said. ''This suggests all countries, including Australia, will need to do more to help achieve this goal.''

The current 5 per cent goal ''would put Australia at the lower end of effort compared with other developed countries,'' the report said. ''This position would sit uncomfortably with Australia's relative prosperity and high per person emissions.''

Earlier this week, 13 European environment ministers called for the European Union to raise its target of cutting emissions by 20 per cent of 1990 levels by decade's end. Britain has called for the EU to aim for a 50 per cent reduction by 2030.

The Obama administration, meanwhile, has claimed the US is on course to slice emissions 17 per cent of 2005 levels by 2020. The US also aims to cut emissions by 80 per cent by 2050.

A failure to raise the 2020 reduction target would shift the burden of cuts to future decades, requiring ''an implausibly rapid acceleration of effort''. ''Failing to do more in the short term is likely to increase future costs and cause unnecessary disruption to the economy and community more broadly,'' the report said.

A 15 per cent cut would imply one of the strongest targets among developed nations compared with business-as-usual conditions, while a 25 per cent goal would make it the most ambitious goal on current pledges by other nations, the authority said. Even at 25 per cent, though, the target would still see per-capita Australian emissions the second highest among developed countries behind only Canada.

Climate talks

Talks next month in Warsaw, Poland, may see nations pledge tougher action to combat climate change before summits next year leading up to plans for a new climate treaty to be agreed in Paris in 2015.

Australia's shift away from a carbon market and a reluctance to strengthen targets puts Australia at odds with global efforts to step up action, said Erwin Jackson, deputy CEO of the Climate Institute, before the release of the authority's draft report.

''They have to align those two processes because at the moment they are completely out of alignment,''” Mr Jackson said.

Malte Mainshausen, the head of a new climate centre at Melbourne University, said Australia’s current 5 per cent goal ''is only a meagre step'', not least because emissions have continued to rise strongly if the reduction in land clearing is excluded.

If global emissions don't peak before 2020, ''we are already talking about emission cuts in the order of 3-4 per cent a year that we have to achieve'', Dr Mainshausen said.

Dr Mainshausen, who last week launched the Australian-German College of Climate & Energy Transitions, said developed nations would need to reduce emissions by 80-95 per cent by 2050 given that poorer countries such as China were lifting theirs as they industrialise.

The Climate Institute's Mr Jackson said that goal may prove conservative, with richer nations likely to need to decarbonise their economies by about 2040.

The draft report notes the 80 per cent target the Labor governments advocated for 2050 compare with country's such as Norway, which aims for carbon neutrality - or zero net emissions - by that time.

The EU is aming for 80-95 below 1990 levels by 2050 and Japan 80 per cent, while the US goal is reduce emissions by then to 83 per cent its 2005 levels.